Member Info for bunsenburner123

I’ve seen companies delist when they’re failing

I’ve seen companies delist when they have no cash and need to raise privately

IVE NEVER SEEN A COMPANY DELIST when they have double cash to cap AND no debt

This is not normal. We can win this

It flipped, it did show 3.55p now it’s back to 2.60p

Just shows how quick it will rocket when people realise this vote is IMO unlikely to succeed

To buy £10k on IG is 3.55p. I knew the MMs had no stock they wanted to take it lower but couldn’t. Interesting

Here we go chaps

I’ve seen companies delist when they’re failing

I’ve seen companies delist when they have no cash and need to raise privately

IVE NEVER SEEN A COMPANY DELIST when they have double cash to cap AND no debt

This is not normal. We can win this

Really want to load up more on the cheap but MMs very nervous about dropping the buy price

I’m waiting

Haha ok mate 😉

Where I think this is a weak response

The biggest omission is:

If the public market is irrationally valuing Nanoco at £4.4m-£5.1m while cash is £10.1m, why should shareholders surrender liquidity and protections rather than realise some of that cash?

He doesn’t really address that.

His argument explains why the board wants to delist.

It doesn’t necessarily explain why shareholders should agree.

Those are two different questions.

⸻

The key flaw I see

He says:

“Voting No may simply prolong uncertainty.”

True.

But voting Yes creates a different uncertainty:

* Will shareholders ever see the cash?

* What reporting will be provided?

* What happens if commercialisation fails?

* What happens after the Takeover Code protection expires?

So the choice isn’t:

* Certainty versus uncertainty.

It’s:

* Public company uncertainty.

* Private company uncertainty.

Shareholders have to decide which they prefer. And it looks increasingly clear a NO VOTE will be desired by the majority

Yes, there is real evidence that Milkwood and the Nanoco board have been at odds.

In late 2024, Milkwood requisitioned a General Meeting and attempted to appoint two directors, including its founder, to the Nanoco board. The existing board strongly opposed this move and urged shareholders to vote against it.

What’s particularly interesting is the board’s description of Milkwood. The board said Milkwood had a track record of activist campaigns at undervalued, cash-rich companies and claimed Milkwood believed there was little value in Nanoco’s operating business and preferred a strategy focused on cash and investments rather than continuing the existing business.

However, there’s an important counterpoint:

* Milkwood lost that battle.

* Around 29% of the register voted.

* They needed 50% of the votes that time. This time they only need 25% of the votes. That means if milkwood vote no then they will win the vote based off the previous turnout of 29%.

So while Milkwood clearly disagreed with the board, the wider shareholder base backed management at that point. That would’ve been more understandable the time as people would Not have known Milkwoods True ambitions.

Why Milkwood matters now

Milkwood still appears to own about 8% of Nanoco.

If Milkwood votes against the delisting:

* That’s potentially 8% of the company already in the “No” camp.

* Since the board needs 75% of votes cast, an 8% holder opposing can be significant.

* If other institutions join them, the resolution becomes much harder to pass.

The thing that catches my eye

Back in November 2024, the board was saying:

surplus cash will be returned to shareholders as the sale process progresses.

Now, in 2026, the company is proposing a delisting while still holding about £10.1m cash.

That doesn’t mean the board has done anything wrong, but it does create a natural question for shareholders:

What changed between the 2024 discussion of returning surplus cash and the 2026 proposal to delist and continue investing in the business?

I suspect that question will be central to how institutions vote.

The reason I find this situation unusual is that many delisting proposals are accompanied by financial distress. Nanoco explicitly says it has £10.1m cash and is not in financial difficulty.

Back in November at 7p. Supposedly they have enough to through to the drill. Tbf it’s still a way off, revisit in 2-4 weeks I’d say

*its actually not = to market value. Its less than half

The reason I find this situation unusual is that many delisting proposals are accompanied by financial distress. Nanoco explicitly says it has £10.1m cash and is not in financial difficulty.

That gives opponents a much stronger argument than usual:

“Why delist a company with cash roughly equal to its market value?”

That’s the question the board will need shareholders to look past if they want to reach the 75% threshold.

Based on the information available, I would not assume the board automatically gets the 75% approval.

A few factors work against the proposal:

* Nanoco has around £10.1 million of cash and a market cap of only about £5 million. Many shareholders will see a large discount between cash and market value and may prefer the company to remain listed while that value gap is addressed.

* Delisting removes a huge number of shareholder protections. After cancellation, there would be no obligation to publish interim results, announce material developments, disclose major shareholdings, or seek approval for certain transactions.

* Liquidity becomes much worse. The proposed JP Jenkins matched bargain facility is far less liquid than a stock exchange listing.

* Some investors may view the argument that a listing costs £700k per year as weak when the company holds over £10m in cash.

On the other hand, factors that help the board:

* Retail investors are often poor at voting. Many simply do not submit proxy votes.

* Institutional holders sometimes support boards unless there is a very strong reason not to.

* The board can argue they are saving £700k annually, equivalent to roughly 14% of the current market cap every year.

* If only a small percentage of shareholders vote, the board only needs 75% of the votes cast, not 75% of all shares in issue.

The key question is really who owns the shares and whether the larger holders oppose the plan.

Using the AGM results you posted previously, only around 17.5% of the company’s voting rights were represented at the AGM. If participation at the General Meeting were similar, then a relatively small number of shares could block the proposal.

For example:

* If 20% of shares vote,

* The board needs 75% of those votes,

* A blocking minority is just over 25% of votes cast,

* Which equates to only about 5% of the total shares outstanding.

That is why activist shareholders often focus on getting people to vote rather than buying a majority of the company.

My rough assessment would be:

* Not a foregone conclusion.

* If a couple of sizeable holders decide the £10m cash balance is worth protecting and actively campaign against the delisting, the proposal could absolutely fail

OAPK20 your posts are annoying 🤦‍♂️😂

All im saying is pretty confident it’ll pump into the 4’s (which I appreciate isn’t saying much!) next week

I’ll be loading this week in anticipation. Can’t see any bad news taking the SP lower. Might tag 2.2p sure but I’ll be staging in so I’m happy over the next few days

Feeks so you’re saying the board will win this vote? Really? You really think they’ll get 75% of the votes? I don’t. No way

Terrorwit watch what happens starting next week

The better traders are quietly loading now

If this vote fails, SP will likely spike to 5p

Guys literally work it out - i dont think we need more than 10m shares to vote NO. Laura at 1.4m, other poster on 3m, Im working my way towards 1m. just three people is potentially over half what we might likely need

Shares or £?

When can we put in our vote?